A hostage crisis at the Discovery Channel building has ended with the attacker shot dead, and pundits and reporters are rushing to label him a “radical environmentalist,” “eco-terrorist,” and “environmental activist.” Some are even saying “eco-fascist.” And others are pointing to the Earth Liberation Front. For talking heads, it is a good soundbite for pushing their political agenda, and for the press is makes a sexier headline, but the label just doesn’t make any sense.

James Lee’s “radical environmentalism” is a one-man campaign against the Discovery Channel, which airs programs such as Whale Wars… programs that the Japanese have attacked as supporting “eco-terrorists.” Lee spent thousands of dollars out of his own pockets advertising his protests, and paid homeless people to attend. His “manifesto,” as some are beginning to call it, rails against “parasitic human infants,” including “immigration pollution and anchor baby filth.”

I have been covering the radical environmental movements for over 10 years, and I’m flat-out confused by all of this. Here’s why. Lee’s “radical environmentalism” is directed at a company that is not the ire of any other animal rights and environmental activists. The Discovery Channel has actually been attacked as promoting radical environmentalism. Lee seems to have had no involvement with any environmental groups (aboveground or underground) except his one-man show. Nothing like this has ever happened in the history of the environmental movement. None of it adds up. Yet the mainstream press has been clamoring to say this was a “radical environmentalist” or “eco-terrorist.”

Is “radical environmentalist” a more acceptable rush judgment than saying someone was insane? Because that’s the first, and only, thing that has come to mind in this case.

James Lee has written:

“The Discovery Channel is a big part of the problem, not the solution. Instead of showing successful solutions, their broadcast programs seem to be doing the opposite. Shows like ‘Cash Cab’ and ‘Dirty Jobs’ serve as diversions to keep the focus off what is really important, which is Global Warming and Animal Extinction. Why do they broadcast a show like “Future Weapons” that only promise to destroy the planet even more? And their new lineup “Planet Green” is all about more products and other substandard solutions.”

I’ve read countless communiques and justifications by radical groups about their actions, and whether or not you agree with them, you can at least follow some string of reasoning. The target has some connection to the radical beliefs they espouse. In this case? It seems to be the result of personal obsession divorced from reality.

Even with far-right extremists murdering abortion-providers, shooting up mosques, bombing black churches, there is some line of reasoning, however thin, that can be threaded between them and their targets. When a white supremacist stormed the Holocaust museum, one can connect the actions to a long line of holocaust denialism in those groups. When an anti-abortion bomber murders doctors, the link is much more direct. When Joe Stack flew a plane into the IRS building in Austin, there was a network of people supporting his actions and decrying the tyranny of taxation. Some call him a hero.

So could some of the right-wingers and mainstream reporters covering this please make the same connection in this case? Is there a movement against the Discovery Channel I am unaware of? Are there other eco-terrorists outraged by “Dirty Jobs” and “Future Weapons”? I do not intend to make light of this situation or the fear instilled in those hostages. However, as this issues spirals out of control, could one of these talking heads please stop and help me connect Lee to something, ANYTHING, except the local homeless shelter?

This video is from the plenary session at the 2010 national animal rights conference in Washington, DC. I talk about the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, secretive political prisons called Communications Management Units, and how we must respond.

Thanks to Mark Hand of Press Action for posting the footage.

When most people think of “terrorism,” they think 9/11, anthrax, and suicide bombers. Corporations and the politicians who represent them are aggressively campaigning to apply the word to animal rights and environmental activists who have done nothing like that. Some activists have faced terrorism charges for chalking slogans on the sidewalk and protesting. Activism is not terrorism.

Just in time for the national animal rights conference, we have these great new t-shirts. Thanks to Andy at Sparrow Media for helping make this happen.

Black American Apparel t-shirts, with a matte bronze ink. Text reads “Activism Is Not Terrorism.” Available in either unisex or women’s sizes, shown here on the always-lovely Cassandra (caught giving “sultry eyes” to a cast member of Jersey Shore… true story).

(Here is close-up view of the design on both styles of shirts.)

$20. FREE SHIPPING for U.S. orders.

Select a Size

Unisex S Unisex M Unisex L Unisex XL Women’s S Women’s M Women’s L

If you haven’t already, check out the rest of the GreenIsTheNewRed.com store.

A U.S. District Court has thrown out the indictment of four animal rights activists who were charged with violating the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, because the government did not clearly explain what, exactly, the protesters did.

When Joseph Buddenberg, Maryam Khajavi, Nathan Pope and Adriana Stumpo were arrested in 2009, prosecutors said little other than that the group allegedly chalked slogans on the sidewalk, distributed fliers and attended protests. Later, when they were officially indicted, the government was still tight-lipped about how their non-violent, above-ground protests amounted to “terrorism.”

In response, the Center for Constitutional Rights and attorney Matthew Strugar led an effort to have the indictments dismissed. In short, they argued that the charges should be dropped because they seem to involve only protected First Amendment speech, but that in order to make that argument the defendants’ speech must be clearly identified.

Here’s an excerpt from Judge Ronald M. Whyte’s ruling:

In order for an indictment to fulfill its constitutional purposes, it must allege facts that sufficiently inform each defendant of what it is that he or she is alleged to have done that constitutes a crime. This is particularly important where the species of behavior in question spans a wide spectrum from criminal conduct to constitutionally protected political protest. While “true threats” enjoy no First Amendment protection, picketing and political protest are at the very core of what is protected by the First Amendment. Where the defendants’ conduct falls on this spectrum in this case will very likely ultimately be decided by a jury. Before this case proceeds to a jury, however, the defendants are entitled to a more specific indictment setting forth their conduct alleged to be criminal. [emphasis added]

As background, a fierce campaign has been being waged in California against animal research at the University of California system. There has been a wide range of both legal and illegal tactics. Illegal tactics have included the destruction of UC vans, and an incendiary device was left at the home of a UC researcher.

The FBI and local law enforcement haven’t been able to catch the people responsible, though. They’ve only cracked down on the above-ground activists, like the AETA 4, who protest and create fliers.

The previous version of the law was used to convict the SHAC 7 for running a controversial website that posted news of both legal and illegal actions. This case, the first use of the new Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, was clearly an attempt to use this sweeping legislation even more broadly against First Amendment activity. This ruling sternly rebukes the government’s attempt to take activists to trial for “terrorism” without even explaining what they have done.

To be clear, though, this case is not over. The government can still re-indict the defendants with an amended bill of particulars that clearly outlines their alleged actions.

This is a victory worth celebrating, and it should also be inspiration for renewed organizing. Corporations and the politicians who represent them have been pushing this “eco-terrorism” and “animal enterprise terrorism” legislation for years, and they will not sit quietly as the flagship case of their pet scare-mongering law is tossed aside.

If prosecutors choose to re-indict, it should be at their own peril; the animal rights and environmental movements must be ready to respond even more loudly, more forcefully, that activism is not terrorism.

I was interviewed by Scott Horton recently about the government’s proposal to make Communications Management Units permanent.

We talked about the history of the experimental units, and what separates them from ADX-Florence, the Supermax. Most importantly, the Supermax was created for the most violent prisoners, who pose a physical threat, and the CMUs were created for political prisoners who pose an ideological threat.

The Bureau’s proposal makes clear that the CMUs are intended to keep political prisoners with “inspirational significance” from the public spotlight.

You can listen to the interview below, and on Antiwar Radio.

Will Potter, founder of the GreenIsTheNewRed blog, discusses the prison-within-a-prison Communications Management Units (CMUs) designed to silence non-violent activist prisoners, limited oversight and questionable legal authority for CMUs, the tendency of governments to criminalize dissent from the left and right and why the erosion of individual rights (even of prisoners) negatively effects the whole society.

Here’s a great, short video with Matthew Strugar explaining the case of the AETA 4, who are activists charged under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act for protesting, chanting, and distributing fliers.

The video was created by the folks behind Bold Native, a new film that will be screened at the upcoming Let Live animal rights conference.

Last week a Philadelphia appellate court announced (after months of silence) that it would not revisit the conviction of animal rights activists on terrorism charges. The SHAC 7 were convicted of conspiring to commit animal enterprise terrorism by running a controversial website that posted news of both legal and illegal actions, along with personal information of people connected to the notorious animal testing lab Huntingdon Life Sciences. Their campaign had brought the multinational corporation near bankruptcy.

A three-judge panel of the court had previously upheld the conviction, and the defendants had asked that the full court review it. Now, the only option is to request that the Supreme Court of the United States review the case. There has been no official word about this yet, but multiple defendants have expressed their interest and having this landmark First Amendment case heard by the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, the lead prosecutor who helped secure this “victory in the War on Terrorism” has– surprise, surprise– been promoted. Charles McKenna is now the head of the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness.

He was quoted a few days ago about his hopes for using new “anti-terrorism technology” in his new job.

“We are particularly interested in computer profiling, which is much more sophisticated, and quicker, than traditional racial profiling,” he said.

The targets of this new profiling technology?

“Jihad, Crips, extreme animal-rights activists, it’s all the same: people trying damage the system,” added McKenna.“We need every trick in the book to avert disaster.”

As you can see in this photo, the SHAC 7 are quite gangsta. But no reasonable person could argue that they are the “same” as violent street gangs and Islamic terrorists.

Such absurd scare-mongering rhetoric has become normal for corporations, industry groups, and the politicians who represent them. When it is adopted by government officials who are in charge of keeping us safe, though, it has frightening implications.

There are limited anti-terrorism and law enforcement resources. When people like McKenna let shameless political opportunism shape security priorities (and make no mistake, this is nothing but political opportunism–he has already been rewarded for defending the “system” from activists), it puts everyone at risk.

Chances are, you have never heard of the Inkerman Group. I certainly hadn’t, until I began researching the web of faceless “risk mitigation” companies that help corporations identify threats to their profits.

These companies produce briefing documents that identify business “threats,” including special interest groups, key activists, and legislation. It is a niche industry built upon fear: the business of risk mitigation depends upon the identification of a constant stream of threats. Corporations commission briefing documents which identify (or create) threats to corporate interests, which leads corporations spending money addressing these threats, which leads to more reports… you get the idea.

This financial motivation to identify threats results in some interesting reports. For instance, I previously wrote about the Society of Toxicology commissioning a “threat analysis” that included such detailed information as who animal rights activists are dating.

It is impossible to know the true scope of these reports, and the impact they have had on the broader political climate of the Green Scare. It is fair to say, though, that for many corporate executives, these think tank documents may be the only exposure they have had to the history, motivation and tactics of the animal rights and environmental movements. They are a critical component of broader efforts to label activists (the “threats”) as “terrorists.”

One such report is by the Inkerman Group, called “The War on ‘Eco-Terror’: An analysis of the use of anti-terrorism legislation on activist movements in the UK & US.” It was sent to me with the request that I not identify the commissioner of the report. (The report, from 2007, is marked “confidential” and does not show up in a search of the Inkerman website, but a Google search of the volume number returns a back-end link to the source document on the Inkerman server. Good thing Inkerman is not a security firm, I guess.)

Like many other risk analyses, the Inkerman report is hilariously bad at times. The authors of the report appear to either be quite clueless about the true nature of the radical environmental movement, or quite malicious in their attempts to label mainstream, non-violent tactics as “terrorism.”

For instance, its timeline of “eco-terrorism” begins with the formation of the Sierra Club in 1892, and the formation of the Humane Society of the United States in 1954.

It goes on to identify key developments in the radical environmental movement, including… stickers.

Towards the end of 2000, a new form of eco-terrorism emerged in the US against Sports Utility Vehicles (SUVs). Activists, some reportedly part of the ELF, decided to demonstrate against the environmentally-unfriendly vehicles by placing homemade stickers on them. These ‘Mad Taggers’, as they became known, used to sticker the cars in question, chosen at random with messages such as “I’m Changing the Climate. Ask Me How”, “Bin Laden Used Your Gas Money”, “If You Love America, Get Rid of Your SUV” and “I Don’t Care About the Air”.

However, despite these claims and despite the financial interests involved in this report, the authors do not side in favor of more “eco-terror” legislation.

The introduction of new anti-terror laws seems only to be further complicating the definition of terrorism and what constitutes it, rather than clarifying it. This inherently implies that the Government is still struggling with legally defining the term ‘eco-terrorism’.

In today’s terror climate, the authorities’ fear that terrorist individuals and organisations may ‘slip through the net’ has justified the use of wide-ranging legislation against activists. Many times, actions of ‘eco- terrorists’ are perpetrated to induce fear, and this should rightly be clamped down upon and prosecuted. However, where peaceful protest such as the Camp for Climate Action 2007 intends not to disrupt or threaten human security, the threat alone of anti-terrorist legislation being used against protest is extreme. The issue lies in the blurring of lines between those extremists willing to carry out eco-tage, and those looking to undertake peaceful protest, which should be encouraged in a democracy. This is especially problematic where the two kinds of protests exist side by side at a demonstration, or within groups.

In contrast with the US, which declares eco-terrorism to be the most serious form of domestic terrorism today, the UK must respect the fine lines between democratic voice, illegal activity, terrorism and scare- mongering. [Emphasis added]

Unfortunately, corporations in the United States have not gotten the memo.

I will be speaking at Yale with Andy Stepanian (of the SHAC 7, and a former CMU prisoner) about corporate campaigns to silence non-violent animal rights activists as “terrorists.”

The event is June 13th (see the flier for details). If you’re in the area, please come! Andy is a fantastic speaker. PS: RSVP on Facebook and help spread the word.

“Am I on a terrorist watchlist? Will I be labeled a terrorist?” Activists ask me questions like this all the time. Now you can find out if you are a terrorist using this convenient flow chart!

Click on the image for the full-sized version. And scroll down for information on why the chart flows the way it does…

For more information on each segment of the chart:

• When are Militias and Tea Party Members “Terrorists”?

• Arizona’s “Show Me Your Papers” Law is About More than Immigration

• They Start With “Eco-terrorists,” then There’s a “Blurring of the Lines”
  
• An overview of how animal rights and environmental activists are being labeled the top domestic terrorism threat: “What is the Green Scare?”

The terrorism rhetoric of corporations is absurd and can be funny at times, but it has dangerous consequences if we allow it to go unchecked. For example, there are secretive political prisons on U.S. soil for “domestic terrorists.” Daniel McGowan, an environmental activist, is housed there. Please follow this link and submit a comment against the government’s proposal to make them permanent.